Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Honey, I'm done responding to you. I linked you right to the article (not 'a few tweets') that outlines, very clearly that Uber. Partnered. With. An escort service. The press release came right out of Uber's Lyons offices. And you've twice now missed the part where I said that I don't believe that in and of itself constitutes misogyny, but that it's the writer's right to publish that opinion.

And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*

Saying something is possible is not the same as saying its unlikely. The situation you posited is so extremely unlikely that rational people would not even give it thought. Hence, my diagnosis that you have Feminist Derangement Syndrome.

Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions.

You've now twice demonstrated to me personally (and three times in this thread) that you have no reading comprehension. With that as evidence, I conclude that your lack of reading comprehension is no longer just my opinion, it's a fact. See how that works?

I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.

Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.

I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."

Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.

Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.

this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.

The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.

So you were against Uber's garbage tactics until it turned out the critic was a feminist? Seriously some people just lose it as soon as the 'F' word gets mentioned. For proof see the other replies to your comment.

The female journalist discussed made a public accusation

Please, please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic. I personally don't agree with that, but guess what that's well within her rights to publish. There's no burden of proof on her to back that up. And the fact that Uber worked with an escort service is not under dispute - it was widely advertised by - get this - Uber. I'm noticing a very disturbing trend these days where anti-feminists start frothing at the mouth about "journalistic bias" wrt opinion pieces whenever a feminist viewpoint is put forward, using the language of libel or fraud in order to silence people who have every right to publish their (non-libelous) thoughts.

Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.

I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"

Presto Vivace sends this excerpt from an article at the Kernel, titled 'With Gamergate, it's not enough to ignore the trolls.'
Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not), and subsequently a demographic that comprises half of the total human population has to worry about receiving rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs simply for expressing their opinions. This needs to stop, and while it's impossible to prevent all forms of harassment from occurring online, we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.

We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Not only is such language inappropriate regardless of one's passion on a given subject, but any valid arguments that existed independently of such rhetoric should have been initially presented without it. Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.

Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions. While most people would probably agree with this in theory, far too many are willing to access and distribute this humiliating (and often illegal) content. Instead of simply viewing stories of doxing, slut-shaming, and other forms of online intimidation as an unfortunate by-product of the digital age, we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.

I had the same experience when shopping for usb sound cards - the market is flooded with cheap crap! However, I can't say enough good things about this product, the Griffin imic: http://www.amazon.com/Griffin-...
I needed a solution for recording stereo line in, and most built-in cards no longer offer stereo line in (tin foil hat time: it's because of the riaa!). The imic is cheap compared to a pro audio interface, but has great features like a hardware switch for the mic pre, great linux/alsa support, it's reliable and easy to use, and sounds fine. I'm not an audiophile, and I'd like to echo many other sentiments on this thread that built-in sound cards usually sound 'good enough', however I use it primarily in the 'semi-pro' scenario of recording dj sets, which are primarily unbalanced stereo, and it performs well. I even use it to record live shows off the mixing board. So if you do a little research, there are still high-quality usb sound cards available.

Being purposefully obtuse about the science and motivations behind environmentalism is what's actually anti-reason. And the 'let climate change happen, then sue the oil companies if its bad' plan is a recipe for global disaster, not to mention a joke coming from the biggest proponents of tort reform. Why is it that the one consistent beneficiary of libertarian policies is the bottom line of the biggest corporations? Or do you really believe they're only only big and bad because of the evil government, without which we'd live in a free-market fairy land?

And yet, when disgusting glass and steel monstrosities start blighting gentrified neighborhoods, the 'property rights' brigade thinks that's all well and good. I'd call that ruining a cityscape infinitely more than a little paint from someone trying to develop a positive creative outlet. (yes I am aware that some graffitti is gang-related - that type tends to have (much much) lower artistic value) I guess the rights of real estate developers to make money mean more than the rights of people who actually live there to determine what their neighborhood looks like.

It's a search engine though, so I think this case they are much more similar to an ISP than a media company. They're not creating the content, so I don't understand why they deserve 'free speech'. They should just display the search results, similar to how under the principles of net neutrality the ISPs should just deliver the bits. If there's no compelling business interest for them to be filtering out results other than ideology, then there should be legislation to prevent that filtering. And for the record, I give absolutely not one damn about the "rights" of corporations - they're just as corrupt and slimy as the government, and have vastly more power in practical terms.

I'm seeing you get a lot of flack for this, but for the record I totally agree. For a site that generally supports net neutrality and would like to see ISPs regulated as common carriers, I'm surprised by the assumptions other posters are making about the competitiveness of the search engine marketplace. "Use a different search provider" is getting to be as useful a suggestion as "use a different ISP" when your only options are Verizon and Comcast. I would support legislation that regulated search engines in a similar way. Search engines generally aren't there to create content anyways, only display it, so I actually think they are much more similar to an ISP or telecom in that sense instead of a media company or other entity worthy of 'free speech'. Only a lolbertarian thinks that there's a practical difference whether it's the government taking away your rights or a giant corporation anyways. If this was Google censoring results, would these people feel differently?

The "right to own slaves" necessarily infringes on others' right to be free. The right for two consenting adults to marry infringes on noone else's rights. What you're saying can be boiled down to "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?"